Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[Oystein]

Where did he find it? In some warehouse in China?

So you don't beliebe the expert? In your last post, you said "I'll take what the expert says."
I am confused.




Is he lying?
Java Man, not all the WTC steel went to China, I hope you know that.


ETA:
Oh, and you forgot to answer the question:
In your opinion, was there, or wasn't there, steel that was subjected to 1100°C?


ETA2: I forgot to answer your question, too Answer: I have no idea, but certainly not from China.

 

[Java Man]

So you don't beliebe the expert? In your last post, you said "I'll take what the expert says."
I am confused.




Is he lying?
Java Man, not all the WTC steel went to China, I hope you know that.

Well it says that to have those "phases" temperatures of 1100ºC must have been achieved. Right? So I take it you position based on this expert's comment is that only 1100ºC were needed to produce microspheres, not the original 1500ºC.

 

[beachnut]

• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
the RJ Lee Group

RJ Lee says iron-rich spheres are normal in fires, from the stuff in buildings, burning. etc.

Too bad topnotch trolling skills are not coupled with skills in chemistry, reading, research, and fire science. Why is 911 truth reduced to trolling? Is it 10 years of failure?

 

[Java Man]

ETA:
Oh, and you forgot to answer the question:
In your opinion, was there, or wasn't there, steel that was subjected to 1100°C?

Don't want to appear as if I'm failing to answer your question added on the edit.

Well showing actual steel parts subjected to 1100ºC is a departure from dogma on your part. Usually debunkers have quoted NIST, but I'll play fair and if you support the claims stated of the link you present then I'll accept it as much as I accepted NIST's report as support for your position.

To answer your question in a clear yes/no manner. Yes, I do believe steel was subjected to 1100ºC or possibly even more.

 

[beachnut]

... To answer your question in a clear yes/no manner. Yes, I do believe steel was subjected to 1100ºC or possibly even more.

What was the stucture of the flame?

You know there was zero thermite at the WTC, because there was no iron fused to the steel. What is your fantasy flame?

Your source? Wait, you said you believe the steel was subjected to more than 1100C, but you have no source.


As far as iron spheres, I mean iron-rich, we know fire can cause them.

Funny you should mention the R. J. Lee Group. Turns out Ron Wieck recently asked RJ Lee about the iron microspheres and their formation.

Hot off the press:



Here's the statement, from Rich Lee:
http://www.nmsr.org/rjlee.jpg

Text Version:

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust
Well, let’s start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron‐based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.
Rich Lee

Recap:


OK, here's the RJ Lee Group talking about the formation of iron microspheres in WTC dust. I didn't see anything about "thermite." Can you point out where Rich said "thermite" was the only explanation?

When will you source what you believe? 911 truth is like a religion.

because thermite is extremely stable!!!!!!!

I forgot, you are a thermite expert.

Oh I understand the chemistry. I think I understand it quite well. That's why I find it strange that it happened so well in such uncontrolled environments and just happened to all land on that one beam. Very very very odd indeed.

If you understand chemistry why can't you understand iron-rich spheres happen in fires from office contents? You have no clue what the products of thermite are, and why they are not found on WTC steel. You understand chemistry? Prove it.

How much of your fantasy thermite is needed? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7118167&postcount=1141
Have you fixed the math yet?

 

[Oystein]

Don't want to appear as if I'm failing to answer your question added on the edit.

Well showing actual steel parts subjected to 1100ºC is a departure from dogma on your part. Usually debunkers have quoted NIST, but I'll play fair and if you support the claims stated of the link you present then I'll accept it as much as I accepted NIST's report as support for your position.

To answer your question in a clear yes/no manner. Yes, I do believe steel was subjected to 1100ºC or possibly even more.

I didn't show any such actual steel parts subjected to 1100ºC, I only linked to what a source I deeply mistrust construed as the claims of an amateur whom I know to have published bogus and incompetent science on 9/11.

It interesting that you accepted this evidence. Where is your skepticism?

 

[000063]

I'm not the one claiming it is and isn't an explosive whenever convenient. I'm saying that neither explosives not thermite are feasible, and you keep jumping from one to the other, from detonation from the impact to burning up, when I've pointed out that none of the options in any combination make sense.

...And now you center on explosives not thermite when you were all over the board on the fact that Gage said "thermite". ...

I love how you just keep going right past the parts where I distinctly say all of the options are unfeasible, not just certain combinations.

If the explosives or thermite (which I've shorthanded as "charges" so I don't have to keep typing them both out) burned when they left the building, they would burn inside the building, in the office fire. If they did not burn when they left the building, then there would be a chance of someone finding them. Either the bad guys used charges that would burn up in the office fire, or charges that they knew someone might find later somewhere in Manhattan. Either the charges were useless, or they were evidence for anyone to find.

What hit WTC 7 was flaming debris from WTC 1, North Tower collapsing. I have never alleged that the hypothetical charges reached WTC 7. I don't believe there were any charges whatsoever, as I have already stated. I have alleged that any hypothetical charges would either a)have burned up during the office fire, or b)been knocked out of the building. You've been trying to say the charges would burn up when being knocked out of the building and being exposed to fire for milliseconds--no matter how many times I point out that something being knocked out of the building by the plane impact doesn't mean it would catch fire, including in the very post you are responding to--but that they wouldn't burn up when exposed directly to fire for an hour or more.

Of course, what I haven't pointed out is that the damage from the plane crashes would be entirely random, and thus any charges knocked out of the pattern would disrupt the carefully planned demo setup. And since the bad guys can't exactly walk up to the impact zone and check, they'll have to rely on charges they can't even be sure are working properly. These guys are now firmly in the "idiot" category.

Also, your definition of a "high speed" collapse is entirely subjective.

The funny thing is that I've spotted a number of minor flaws in my argument, and you haven't.

As for my "impossible claim", I explained clearly in the very post you were quote-mining. I missed the question last night because I was sleepy.

Well, I thought about it, and I realized that the bigger question is the container it is in. If the container is capable of withstanding an hour of fire + the impact, then it probably will make it to the ground without igniting, and be found. However, if it is not capable of withstanding the impact and fire, it's pretty poor planning on the bad guys part, and makes the whole thing impossible.

What? If an charge would burn up from the impact explosion, it would burn up from the ensuing fires. If it wouldn't burn up from the impact explosion, someone would probably find it on the ground. Doesn't matter if it's thermite or an explosive.

Either someone finds it, or it can't withstand the fires. There is no Door No. 3.

I've already presented plenty of evidence.

You had to use a sentence fragment, then ask me a question that was explained in the very next paragraph of the initial post. I don't think you've ever actually acknowledged the point I made. You just keep straw-manning and quote-mining.

Not fooling anyone.

 

[000063]

The charges could not be at or anywhere close to the crash sites, since there would be a good chance that they would be knocked out of the building or destroyed or damaged by the mindboggling kinetic impact or the fires. And since they could not have have been anywhere close to the impacts, and the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 both started at the impact zone, then that means any charges which were there were way, way down, and would only be useful for speeding up the collapse, which would make them useless if the place would come down on its own. It also means, by definition, they were not the cause of the collapse. And since they can't have been the cause of the collapse, why were charges set in 7?

About that.

Putting the charges at the impact sites would be like taking files containing evidence against you and throwing them into the air over your local mall's food court. You don't know where it's going, and you don't know if the people below are going to get anything important. There would be a better chance of the charges being "in the wind" than staying in place or being functional enough to work properly, especially after an hour or more of fire.

Unless, of course, it did not burn up entirely before landing, or at all.

Several personal effects were found in the debris and area, including paper from the plane.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Personal_Effects_and_the_Crash-Proof_Passport
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

C4's flammability relates more to it surviving the fire than the impact and getting blown out of the building. By your own logic, if it can catch fire and burn up in a few minutes, then it would also burn when exposed to fire for an even longer period.
And as you can clearly see in the evidence above, not everything knocked out of the buildings was on fire. C4, for example, is a very stable explosive, and could probably survive the trip down without detonation. And even if it or whatever explosive did burn up, you'd still have the much less flammable detonator and wiring attached.

There is no way to be sure it would be destroyed or work, or to tell where it would end up, so it wouldn't be there in the first place, unless the masterminds are insane.

More quote mining.

Heck if I know.

But since [thermite] would be in a container of some sort, either the container breaks when it hits the ground, or it remains intact. in both cases, the container is evidence. Unless the container was designed to burn up when the Thermite is triggered and caught fire as well, in which case it wouldn't be resistant to fire enough to last an hour or so.

And then there's the fact that thermite is somewhat...flashy.

[...]

So even if it did catch fire and burn up on the ground, someone would notice. If there's any risk of that happening, the bad guys can't risk it.

Are you conceding the point about explosives/C4 survival?

So now your explosive both will and won't burn up depending on whether it's been knocked out of the towers or not.

Quote-mining sentence fragments now.

No.

I was using that as evidence that C4 couldn't have landed in the street and detonated. I have also pointed out you can't have an explosive that would not withstand one sort of fire and withstand another, longer fire.

Well, I thought about it, and I realized that the bigger question is the container it is in. If the container is capable of withstanding an hour of fire + the impact, then it probably will make it to the ground without igniting, and be found. However, if it is not capable of withstanding the impact and fire, it's pretty poor planning on the bad guys part, and makes the whole thing impossible.

What? If an charge would burn up from the impact explosion, it would burn up from the ensuing fires. If it wouldn't burn up from the impact explosion, someone would probably find it on the ground. Doesn't matter if it's thermite or an explosive.

Either someone finds it, or it can't withstand the fires. There is no Door No. 3.

I've already presented plenty of evidence.

Because it was a)never in the fireball in the first place, but knocked out of the building by the pressure wave, or b)was not in it long enough to ignite. Incidentally, my point doesn't hinge on whether the charges, whatever they were, caught fire and burned up, as you speculated. If they burned up from the fireball, they'd burn up in the office fire, and if they did not catch fire or did not burn up, they could be anywhere in a large portion of Manhattan, where anyone could pick them up. So either you have charges that would cook off, or charges somewhere random in Manhattan.

Who came up with this plan?

Okay. Does anyone know if that is enough to set it off?

I have made the same point several times, and the only time you even came close to addressing it was quote-mining a sentence fragment then saying I never explained, even when the explanation was in the exact same post.

So, for all the marbles;

If the hypothetical charges caught fire and burned up after being exposed to the fireball for a fraction of a second, why did the other charges, still in the building, not catch fire and blow up when exposed to fire more directly and for a much longer period?

There, concise and short. That way it won't confuse you.

 

[Java Man]

I didn't show any such actual steel parts subjected to 1100ºC, I only linked to what a source I deeply mistrust construed as the claims of an amateur whom I know to have published bogus and incompetent science on 9/11.

It interesting that you accepted this evidence. Where is your skepticism?

My skepticism is doing fine. If I didn't accept the link as your evidence I'd be a very poor skeptic myself. Skepticism : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object. Nowhere in the definition does it say "deny the man the right to bring forth references". Also if I don't listen you out then what good is it? Skepticism does not mean close-minded nor disrespectful.

 

[Java Man]

So, for all the marbles;

If the hypothetical charges caught fire and burned up after being exposed to the fireball for a fraction of a second, why did the other charges, still in the building, not catch fire and blow up when exposed to fire more directly and for a much longer period?

There, concise and short. That way it won't confuse you.

In that hypothetical situation they'd burn up just as easily as the ones that were exposed for a fraction of a second.

 

[Java Man]

Of course, what I haven't pointed out is that the damage from the plane crashes would be entirely random, and thus any charges knocked out of the pattern would disrupt the carefully planned demo setup. And since the bad guys can't exactly walk up to the impact zone and check, they'll have to rely on charges they can't even be sure are working properly. These guys are now firmly in the "idiot" category.

Unless the "carefully planned demo setup" contemplated such disruption and the missing charges were not needed as others could do the job. Its called redundancy.

Also, your definition of a "high speed" collapse is entirely subjective.

Mind taking into a more objective definition then?

 

[000063]

Unless the "carefully planned demo setup" contemplated such disruption and the missing charges were not needed as others could do the job. Its called redundancy.

Except that which ones would be knocked out of the building is completely random.

More cherry-picking. Do you honestly think no one notices?

They didn't get out in time. The building fell on them, and a handful of people in it survived until they could be extracted.

Okay, so are you claiming the initiating charges were at or around the crash sites? The ones where, as I just pointed out, there was no way to be sure the charges would not be damaged or disabled or knocked clean out of the building by the plane impact? Because I think a beam randomly coming down somewhere in Manhattan with CD charges on it would provoke comment. Are there any reports of Men in Black rushing in to secure the debris that was knocked out the building?

And it would've been random, since there were far too many variables involved to tell what would happen to the beams with any precision. The planes' speed, their height, their angle, their load, the contents of the offices, etc. Several of those were thing it was literally impossible to know, even if someone did have a supercomputer capable of computing it. ...

The hypothetical bad guys didn't and couldn't know which beams would be knocked out of the building or damaged. They couldn't put in redundancies for factors they could not predict in anything close to an objective fashion. Not only would the beams thrown out of the building vary wildly based on tiny, unpredictable differences, but so would the damage to the building. You can't put in demo charges that are designed to mimic a 'natural' collapse from damage you can't predict.

Mind taking into a more objective definition then?

No. I don't think the speed has any relevance. I think that explosives or thermite were present in any case, therefore declaring the speed of the collapse evidence of CD is wrong. And even my position was that there was or might have been a CD, the definitions you've been using are so vague as to be useless. Why should I present a more precise definition to back up your position?

In that hypothetical situation they'd burn up just as easily as the ones that were exposed for a fraction of a second.

Ding ding ding!

Exactly.

EDIT: We're basically done with that line. If they'd burn up outside, they'd burn up inside, and if they wouldn't burn up outside, someone might find them. Neither is a workable option for the bad guys.

 

[Java Man]

Except that which ones would be knocked out of the building is completely random.

​

The hypothetical bad guys didn't and couldn't know which beams would be knocked out of the building or damaged. They couldn't put in redundancies for factors they could not predict in anything close to an objective fashion. Not only would the beams thrown out of the building vary wildly based on tiny, unpredictable differences, but so would the damage to the building. You can't put in demo charges that are designed to mimic a 'natural' collapse from damage you can't predict.

Yes you can predict it. That's the point of speed bellow

No. I don't think the speed has any relevance. I think that explosives or thermite were present in any case, therefore declaring the speed of the collapse evidence of CD is wrong. And even my position was that there was or might have been a CD, the definitions you've been using are so vague as to be useless. Why should I present a more precise definition to back up your position?

The speed is of uttermost relevance as the near freefall speeds calls for the presence of assisting mechanism, which in turn call for the usage of either explosives or thermite or both. Thus bringing us microspheres which are produced at 1500ºC (I see Oystien back-pedalled on his 1100ºC statement).

Ding ding ding!

Exactly.

Yup, so much for your residual explosive remains. Thus now you made it clear people won't just "stumble" upon these things.

 

[tfk]

Umm, excuse me ...?!!

The speed is of uttermost relevance as the near freefall speeds calls for the presence of assisting mechanism, which in turn call for the usage of either explosives or thermite or both.

1. The "near free fall speed" of ... WHAT?

2. Care to explain what you think is "the speed of free fall?"


Tom

 

[Java Man]

Umm, excuse me ...?!!



1. The "near free fall speed" of ... WHAT?

2. Care to explain what you think is "the speed of free fall?"


Tom

1. Of the buildings

2. The speed of free fall is when an object falls unobstructed under maximum acceleration by gravity's effect.

 

[000063]

Yes you can predict it. That's the point of speed bellow

I literally just quoted myself listing just a few of the factors which would be in play. For example, if the airplane goes even a few MPH faster or slower than expected, then the damage pattern would be different. Not to mention the angle of impact, the height, the contents of the floors in question, etc. The plane alone represents a large range of variables. Ask any pilot here how hard it would be to keep the plane to the exact same speed while maneuvering like the two planes.

The speed is of uttermost relevance as the near freefall speeds calls for the presence of assisting mechanism, which in turn call for the usage of either explosives or thermite or both. Thus bringing us microspheres which are produced at 1500ºC (I see Oystien back-pedalled on his 1100ºC statement).

Okay, so how close is "near freefall speeds"? 90% of freefall? 80%? 70%?

How much of the building needs to reach these speeds?

How many CDs can you find that fell at Freefall speeds or close to it? If you can find it, post it in this thread too.

And what does this have to do with predicting what damage the plane impacts will do, and which beams will be thrown out of the building? That's rhetorical: nothing.

Yup, so much for your residual explosive remains. Thus now you made it clear people won't just "stumble" upon these things.

So close.

You just admitted that any explosives that would burn up outside would burn up inside as well. And if they burn up inside, they can't be detonated, because they do not exist anymore. It is remarkably difficult to detonate ashes.

If they are capable of withstanding an hour of fire, they are capable of not burning up from the explosion.
Of course, if they don't burn up, then someone could stumble upon them at any time.

Though it is entertaining to see your logic become more and more like a pretzel.

 

[Java Man]

You just admitted that any explosives that would burn up outside would burn up inside as well. And if they burn up inside, they can't be detonated, because they do not exist anymore. It is remarkably difficult to detonate ashes.

If they are capable of withstanding an hour of fire, they are capable of not burning up from the explosion.
Of course, if they don't burn up, then someone could stumble upon them at any time.

Though it is entertaining to see your logic become more and more like a pretzel.

It looks like a pretzel to you because you're looking at it from the presupposition that those charges need to remain intact and functional. When in truth my theory does not require them to survive the impact and subsequent fires. But of course you didn't know that because you labelled me and stereotyped me and worked from there.

 

[grandmastershek]

By totally dodging the majority of what I posted undermines my own arguments? Wow...gold medal material for the mental gymnastics.

[bTotally dodging??[/b] I responded to your post about the hundred foot projection of pieces calling you out on your exaggeration and you called it "cherry picking". Care to answer where you got that a charge made to cut through a beam should have to project that beam hundreds of feet to get the job done?

When you actually respond to my post and stop cherry picking; like you did again. Its not my exaggeration. Its Gage's, Chandler's, & Griffin's BS argument at least. Glad you appear to agree; though you apparently were incapable of understanding it the first time I posted it.

So care to deal with my post as opposed to ignoring what is inconvenient to your precious beliefs?

When in truth my theory does not require them to survive the impact and subsequent fires.

AKA magic

 

[grandmastershek]

Has JM demonstrated his hush boom claim yet? Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[tfk]

1. Of the buildings

2. The speed of free fall is when an object falls unobstructed under maximum acceleration by gravity's effect.

What building do you think fell at "near g acceleration"?

You now understand, I hope, that "g" is an acceleration, which is different than a speed.

You're new posting in this subforum. (At least I haven't seen you since I started in 06.)

Do I detect a legal perspective to your arguments?

My apologies for my persnicketiness, but I'm a mechanical engineer. I have advocated for awhile now that anyone who utters the words "free fall speed" be automatically excluded from the conversation based on technical illiteracy.

It's comparable to someone asking how much i weigh, and I reply 9 feet.

No disrespect intended.

Now, about that "near free fall acceleration building..."?


Tom